Any cricket fans?

I'm sat here scratching my head. Can anyone offer any possible reason as to why England wouldn't enforce the follow-on and make Bangladesh bat again 303 runs behind?
Am I missing something?

I'm not buying the 'batting last on a bad wicket' argument. We're talking about Bangladesh here, a team that shouldn't even be playing test cricket.


its probably easier to bat on the wicket before it cuts up anymore, and then set a nice target say 500 + and bowl at them on the wicket as it gets worse making the bounce less opinion anyway


Batting practice. There are a few players well short of form in the team and they need as much time out in the middle as possible. Also a player like Carberry not having spent long with England. Having England bowl again is not going to do those players any good.

Also, bowlers may not want to be toiling away in the heat again for so long as it takes it out of you and you run the risk of being injured. Broad was touch and go for this test so that probably played a big part.

Not sure what the pitch is doing. Might be a pefect 4 or 5 day pitch for Swann.

I have wondered myself, with a lead of 303, I would have thought it was an easy decision to make.

Original Poster


Batting practice.

Possibly, and just about the only acceptable explanation imo. :thumbsup:

Edit: Swann has just told Atherton that the follow-on wasn't enforced as 'he presumes' that the captain and management must have thought batting again was our best chance of winning the match. :?

I'd imagine climate may have something to do with it they had still bowled 90 overs so give the bowlers a rest in what is often oppressive heat for the bowlers. still have 2 days left.

supposedly the captain said as they only had 4 bowlers in the team then they were getting tired.bless

I've see this more regularly in recent years, especially in televised matches. Besides the advantages of batting practice and not making your bowl attack/fielders work for two innings without a break (in very warm weather conditions) - one wonders whether it's done to keep the game more varied for the television audience, remembering that Sky etc, (and the sponsors) are paying vast sums of money to televise and sponsor the match.

The last thing they want is a three innings game of cricket, done and dusted inside of three days.
Post a comment
    Top Discussions
    1. I banned myself from HUKD for 3m, I saved so much money!2640
    2. Thousands of minimum wage workers to receive part of £2,000,000 compensatio…44
    3. Weekly game codes giveaway 183722
    4. How much would you pay for this chair?1214

    See more discussions